Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
If 18C reform was Brandis's "top priority" as he has said, and it has now been revealed that this policy is a dog and can't get through, then I suggest our Attorney General is incompetent and out of touch and he should resign before he causes the government further embarrassment.
 
Freya Newman went out of her way to defame Abbott's daughter Frances by illegally hacking into personal files and it is very obvious she is a Labor hack and deserves all that is coming to her.

Further more the new paper NEW MATLIDA has a Fabian Society renaissance and when one reads the dozens of their articles it is all anti Abbott and the LNP coalition Government.....

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...cholarship-files/story-fn59niix-1227014638264

https://newmatilda.com/topic/australian-politics
 
Tink said:
Disappointed with Abbott.

Not even America has sacrificed their freedom for peace.
Click to expand...

* CIA tortured "some folks" as admitted by Obama recently

* CIA spying on members of congress

* NSA monitored 125 BILLION phone calls in just ONE MONTH

Yup, freedom all right.
 
So now I understand why Abbott and Hockey were so gung ho and happy with the reinflation property bubble in Australia last year.

As the newly minted PM said "If housing prices go up, sure that makes it harder to get into the market, but it also means that everyone who is in the market has a more valuable asset."

Labor must have missed the memo to gear up into the property market big time.

http://blog.australiaboomtobust.com/2014/08/propertied-federal-political-class/

The public should ask “Are the property holdings of our federal politicians negatively influencing policy and causing them to ignore evidence?”

Australia’s federal political class own an enormous property portfolio, with only 13 of the 226 members (6 per cent) not holding any real estate. In the Senate, 76 members own a total of 202 properties – 2.7 properties per Senator – estimated to be worth around $107 million.

Further, 91 per cent of all Senators own real estate (57 per cent investment/commercial property/vacant land, 41 per cent owner-occupied and 2 per cent recreational), 75 per cent have a mortgage, and the top ten control a colossal 95 properties.

Senator Xenophon maintains an impressive portfolio of eight investment properties, along with Senator Barry O’Sullivan from the National Party who owns an incredible fifty properties (see Table 2). The high concentration of landed gentry in the Senate acts as a vested interest to pass policies which inflates housing (land) prices.

The 150 members in the House of Representatives also have substantial property interests. In total, they own 361 properties – 2.41 properties per member – estimated to be worth around $191 million.

Moreover, 95 per cent of all Representatives own real estate (54 per cent investment/commercial property/vacant land, 43 per cent owner-occupied and 3 per cent recreational), 86 per cent have a mortgage, and the top ten own an astonishing 92 properties. Double-digit property holdings are maintained by David Gillespie (NP, 18 properties), Clive Palmer (PUP, 13 properties), Natasha Griggs (CLP, 12 properties) and Karen Andrews (LIB, 10 properties) (see Table 2).
 
sydboy007 said:
The public should ask “Are the property holdings of our federal politicians negatively influencing policy and causing them to ignore evidence?”

Australia’s federal political class own an enormous property portfolio, with only 13 of the 226 members (6 per cent) not holding any real estate. In the Senate, 76 members own a total of 202 properties – 2.7 properties per Senator – estimated to be worth around $107 million.
Click to expand...

As if we didn't know, but it's good to see some actual numbers.
 
While there's major difference between the USA and Australian welfare systems, the proposed changes for those under 30 are moving those people to a very USA comparable model.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/08/did-cutting-jobless-benefits-promote-work-not-so-much/

Two pieces of evidence suggest this “bootstraps” theory might be wrong. First, a new paper from the Boston Fed paper looking at the Not-So-Great Recovery finds that, yes, the unemployed tended to remain so until their UI benefits were exhausted. But their next move wasn’t into a job. Rather, they became “more likely to drop out of the labor force; transitions to a job appear to be unaffected by UI benefit extensions, ” writes Katharine Bradbury in “Labor Market Transitions and the Availability of Unemployment Insurance.”

http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/wp/wp2014/wp1402.pdf for above

Second, economist Justin Wolfers looks at what happened in North Carolina after the state in July last year lost its eligibility for the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program. While employment grew over the next six months, it actually grew a bit slower than in neighboring South Carolina, which has a similar economy. After also comparing North Carolina to Georgia and Tennessee, Wolfers concludes, “The bottom line is that North Carolina looks quite similar to its peers, and certainly not better.” Nor has South Carolina performed better than North Carolina this year after the feds cut long-term UI benefits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/upshot/north-carolinas-misunderstood-cut-in-jobless-benefits.html for above
 
sydboy007 said:
* CIA tortured "some folks" as admitted by Obama recently

* CIA spying on members of congress

* NSA monitored 125 BILLION phone calls in just ONE MONTH

Yup, freedom all right.
Click to expand...

I don't think they have the C18 in the USA and Canada.
 
banco said:
We can always count on you to spin something in Tony Abbott's favor.
Click to expand...
Sigh. I would have made far more posts containing criticism about Mr Abbott than otherwise.
This instance is one where the legislation should have just been left alone in the first place.
Right now, I'm for whatever will help to keep Australia safe, and the to this end government needs the co-operation of the Muslim community.

Tink said:
Disappointed with Abbott.

Not even America has sacrificed their freedom for peace.
Click to expand...

sydboy007 said:
* CIA tortured "some folks" as admitted by Obama recently

* CIA spying on members of congress

* NSA monitored 125 BILLION phone calls in just ONE MONTH

Yup, freedom all right.
Click to expand...
Really, Tink? What freedoms do you believe you are sacrificing in this instance?
 
Tink said:
I was talking about the 18C, Julia, but Syd's gone off on something else.
Click to expand...

If someone can't have a discussion about any topic in a way that's not derogatory about another party then they probably shouldn't be having the discussion until they can do it appropriately.

As Julia asked, what freedoms has 18C removed in Australia?

Some specific examples would be welcome rather than vague assumptions.

As for my previous post, you were arguing somehow the USA has more freedoms because they don't have similar 18C legislation. The point I was making there's a much bigger picture to look at when referrign to freedoms.

Back to 18C, I do find it a bit telling that the PM felt it necessary to tell Bolt before the general public. Nice to know that the PM has his information flow firstly to those that need to know first.
 
Let's take a look at 18C

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

(b) is done in a public place; or

(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

(3) In this section:

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.
Click to expand...

Thew application of this section of the statute would seem to me to be extremely subjective.

It could be applied to Christmas, or waving a flag, or wearing a tee-shirt or tattoo. or walking down the high street in Lakemba eating a pork pie etc etc.

It's a bad statute that should be repealed or modified. It can (and has) been used to stitch someone up. It is not a fair or equally applied limit on the freedom of speech.
 
Julia said:
Sigh. I would have made far more posts containing criticism about Mr Abbott than otherwise.
This instance is one where the legislation should have just been left alone in the first place.
Right now, I'm for whatever will help to keep Australia safe, and the to this end government needs the co-operation of the Muslim community.
Click to expand...

Possibly the 18C legislation will also act s a clampdown for any of the nutters coming back to the country. Even if they're not in their basements plotting acts of mass murder, they could be going around inciting hatred and fear mongering if 18C had been removed.

I still remember growing up when it was perfectly acceptable and legal for someone to stand up and call for the bashing and killing of gays. I can understand why immigrants and those who aren't part of the dominant white culture would have felt threatened by a future without the 18C legislation.

The 18C is probably not perfect, but I'll take it until someone proposes better legislation.
 
wayneL said:
Let's take a look at 18C



Thew application of this section of the statute would seem to me to be extremely subjective.

It could be applied to Christmas, or waving a flag, or wearing a tee-shirt or tattoo. or walking down the high street in Lakemba eating a pork pie etc etc.

It's a bad statute that should be repealed or modified. It can (and has) been used to stitch someone up. It is not a fair or equally applied limit on the freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Would you be able to provide a specific example of rational debate that would fall foul of this law?
 
I guess a bit OT as far as this thread, but I prefer social behaviour change campaigns, which can be initiated by government or like Beyond Blue's current campaign on discrimination.
 
sydboy007 said:
Would you be able to provide a specific example of rational debate that would fall foul of this law?
Click to expand...

Perhaps an argument on the inappropriateness of Sharia in Australia could conceivably run foul of this statute... perhaps an argument for the outlawing of Halal? Ban the Burqua etc.

It may seem absurd at this point in time, but the statute has that potential interpretation.

Even Bolt's prosecution under this statute was a very long and tenuous bow.
 
wayneL said:
Perhaps an argument on the inappropriateness of Sharia in Australia could conceivably run foul of this statute... perhaps an argument for the outlawing of Halal? Ban the Burqua etc.

.
Click to expand...

One would think such discussions are covered under 18D ,

"He pointed out that the Racial Discrimination Act already included another section, 18D, which provided a number of exemptions. This included “anything said or done reasonably and in good faith” while publishing “a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment”."
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...issioner-backs-tony-abbotts-race-law-decision
 
wayneL said:
Let's take a look at 18C
Thew application of this section of the statute would seem to me to be extremely subjective.
It could be applied to Christmas, or waving a flag, or wearing a tee-shirt or tattoo. or walking down the high street in Lakemba eating a pork pie etc etc.

It's a bad statute that should be repealed or modified. It can (and has) been used to stitch someone up. It is not a fair or equally applied limit on the freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
Correct and well said.

Such legislation can be a double-edged sword. Lawyers picnic.
 
SirRumpole said:
One would think such discussions are covered under 18D ,



http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...issioner-backs-tony-abbotts-race-law-decision
Click to expand...

18D is still nebulous and extremely subjective

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18D

Exemptions
Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.
Click to expand...

Pick an interpretation, any interpretation... the best lawyer wins.

The wording of the legislation is about as vague as it gets... define art... define public interest... define scientific purpose.

At once, 18D nullifies 18C altogether, or can be ignored altogether. It depends on interpretation and mood of the body politik.

This statutes are as bad as they get, total rubbish. Legislature having been so poorly performed, the executive and judicial left to do what the f$$$ they want with it, depending on their politics and propensity for activism.
 
I have to say that though Bolt got his facts wrong and distorted the arguments as he usually does, it still surprised me that he lost the court case. So I agree, it can be used to stitch someone up.

The problem was Brandis. He wanted radical change that effectively deleted the act and then said everyone has the right to be bigots. Talk about poor judgement.

Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane argues the keep case well but I really respect the guy and am sure he would have supported a redrafting to tighten it up.

But due to the typical pathetic behaviour of parts of the Coalition front bench, it became toxic. Abbot was right to end it. He needs to shift a few ministers.
 
Agree, Wayne and Logique.

I think a few have been concerned and disappointed for those very reasons.

It becomes a sort of bullying in the opposite way, imo.

I think we will be sorry in the long run.
 
Top